[Zarax]

With Utopia Engines of course...

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
*sighs*

I've already proven that a carrier the same size of a destroyer would not carry ub3r m1ll10ns fighters/bombers... meh...

No you didn't. Fighters (and everything need for them - from pilot bunks to storage space, etc. ) require LOTS and LOTS of room.

Everything would have to be bigger - bigger mess hall, bigger kitchen, bigger hangars, bigger crew quaters, bigger storage areas (food, fuel , ammo, replacement parts).

Naturraly, that would result in the rmovla of most heavy weapons to clear the space, and smaller reacotr (not needed noew the big guns are mostly gone) to clear up the space.

And besides, no one said ub3r m1ll10ns fighters/bombers, but lots more than a destroyer can...
Weather you admitt it or not, a carrier would still have a important role - it would be cheaper to produce than a destroyer, it would (probably) be more mobile, and it can cover larger areas due to the larger fighternumber.

[StratComm]

Give it up already.  Every concievable argument on that has already been made.  Some think that a carrier would be more effective than a destroyer, others less.  This is going the way of a political debate rather quickly, and has far less ramifications.  Freespace is a game, and a game that, like it or not, relies fairly heavily on scripting.  So if you build your "ultra carrier-o-doom" and I use it in a campaign, I can make it as strong or as weak as I want to.  So please. stop. arguing.

[Zarax]

Talking about Uber Capships Of Mayem +3, how is your new vasudan model going?

[Swamp_Thing]

@KARAJORMA

If i had just said i was totally opposed at node blockades, what makes you think i would even consider sending a carrier to storm it??

@ngtm1r
The FS universe does have awacs. If anyone remembers their campaign, we get early warning of impending jump. Command always informs Alpha 1 that an enemy ship is about to come out of subspace, before we even see it. Wich means they have some way of seeing into subspace. Look at the node blockade missions.
So, imagine you are the captain of a carrier. A huge force is detected coming at you. Would you just sit there in wait for it???

The smaller number of fighters the destroyer has, overall, is not so important here, because it has all its fighters deployed and the carrier has only a fraction of its fighter complement deployed. In all likelyhood, the destroyer's fighters will outnumber the carrier's CAP.

What??? Why on earth would the carrier, wich is a dedicated platform for launching fighters, would get less fighters up in the air than a destroyer, a non-dedicated platform???

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by StratComm


Give it up already.  Every concievable argument on that has already been made.  Some think that a carrier would be more effective than a destroyer, others less.  This is going the way of a political debate rather quickly, and has far less ramifications.  Freespace is a game, and a game that, like it or not, relies fairly heavily on scripting.  So if you build your "ultra carrier-o-doom" and I use it in a campaign, I can make it as strong or as weak as I want to.  So please. stop. arguing.

Zigackly.  There is not even a canon carrier size let alone class description.  You might as well argue over whether the coin I just tossed was heads or tails.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Zarax
Talking about Uber Capships Of Mayem +3, how is your new vasudan model going?

It's not making tons of progress at the moment, Max->pof doesn't like me.  It's getting there though.  I actually have about a dozen models that I'd really like to get out.  Soon enough, though

Originally posted by aldo_14


Zigackly.  There is not even a canon carrier size let alone class description.  You might as well argue over whether the coin I just tossed was heads or tails.

I say it was heads

[Ghostavo]

TrashMan, prove that a FS destroyer sized hull can support more fighters than any FS destroyer.

Also, disprove my previous arguments that destroyer weaponry don't take much energy or space.

You people won't listen. FS destroyers cannot carry more fighters because there isn't any more space INSIDE THEIR HULLS!!! Unless you are talking about carriers attaching their fighter complements in their hull... Look at the size of a fighter. The smallest has 15m, the largest bomber has something like 45m unless I'm mistaken...

EDIT:
Sorry about this, lately I've been pissed at somethings that have been happening around me. Anyway, let me try to say this in a different way.

Imagine your carrier. Armor is required because of radiation, protection, etc... (unless you want a single hornet to blow the crap out of anything in the hull) Now imagine that you can put weapons all over the hull without taking much space... That is a FS Destroyer... If there is any fighter carrying diference it would be 1 or 2 small fighters probably...

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
If i had just said i was totally opposed at node blockades, what makes you think i would even consider sending a carrier to storm it??

This is just too funny.

Just cause you're opposed to node blockades doesn't mean your opponents have to be.  

Let me give you a real FS2 situation. The NTF captured the three systems of Polaris, Regulus and Sirius. How the f**k do you think they'd defend them? Do you really think Bosch would be so stupid as to not defend the nodes heavily? Do you really think that if the GTVA forces had carriers he'd piss away his advantage by allowing those carriers to enter his systems, deploy their fighters and only then engage them? Do you think he'd do that just cause you don't like node blockades?

Ghostavo :  I'm with you. What little evidence there is points to the fact that if you tried to develop a carrier you'd probably end up with something pretty much like an FS destroyer. The only reason for not putting more beams on is if the power requirements are high (The orion did have a lot of power after all).

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
TrashMan, prove that a FS destroyer sized hull can support more fighters than any FS destroyer.

Also, disprove my previous arguments that destroyer weaponry don't take much energy or space.

You people won't listen. FS destroyers cannot carry more fighters because there isn't any more space INSIDE THEIR HULLS!!! Unless you are talking about carriers attaching their fighter complements in their hull... Look at the size of a fighter. The smallest has 15m, the largest bomber has something like 45m unless I'm mistaken...

EDIT:
Sorry about this, lately I've been pissed at somethings that have been happening around me. Anyway, let me try to say this in a different way.

Imagine your carrier. Armor is required because of radiation, protection, etc... (unless you want a single hornet to blow the crap out of anything in the hull) Now imagine that you can put weapons all over the hull without taking much space... That is a FS Destroyer... If there is any fighter carrying diference it would be 1 or 2 small fighters probably...

ERm...I don't recall the size of heavy weapons or there energy requirements ever being mentioned as small.

In the Colossus cutscene we can see the beam cannon is far larger than it seems, and the thing on the hull is jsut the small top. It is allso logical that they require large ammounts of power, since they take long to power up/down and they are powerfull weapons.

A dedicated carrier would have 3-4 fighterbays in opposed to a destroyer. It will certanly be able to launch fighter more quickly and in greater numbers that destroyer.

And I'm not saying a carrier is better than a destroyer - I'm only saying that is a completely plausable craft that has it's own strenght and weaknesses.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by StratComm

I say it was heads

Say what was heads?

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
1.1 - Beam Weapons

Pre-FS2 capital ships don't have beam weapons, and when they started getting beam weapons there wasn't much change (no change at all) in the quantities fighters could be housed within them which leads to one of the following conclusions:

a) Beam weapons energy reactors don't require much space at all

b) They use the same energy reactor as the previous weapons

c) They use a new type of reactor that occupies the same space

If you use the first option, that means that the large power consumption that a beam weapon has, is nothing to modern FS2 reactors which are small. If you choose the second one, seeing that in spite of this "radical" change in weapon configuration, the Destroyer still functions as it functioned, only much better. I don't see much issue.

The first option clearly states that if there is a new reactor, it is really small. The second option requires you to think a bit. Think about how many weapons an average destroyer has, and think of the energy it requires to fire... say... a huge turret. Think of the damage it does and try to make a fighter equivalent to it. Seeing that fighters aren't cruiser sized, it is safe to admit that such reactors are not huge (probably the size of 2 small fighters, maybe less). Of course they take up space, but such a reactor would probably be needed to use the subspace drive.

Then there is the issue about how large are beam weapons, seeing that fighter housing issue is out of the way, I'd say they don't occupy that much space too and occupy as much as the previous weapons.

I'm not saying that a destroyer is better than a carrier either because there is no carrier or destroyer (pure destroyer that is) destroyer sized hull ship in FS. A Orion is both a carrier and a destroyer because there is nothing left for it to do. If you want more fighterbays that's fine. It's probably what the tendency is in the future. But weapons are not being disproved (can find better words) either. Even the Hecate, which is a sucky thing carries beam weaponry. The Ravana, also a carrier possesses massive firepower. They are merely named destroyers because it was a)cool b)better description seeing that it names their own fuction in the battle. Like karajorma said, no matter how much you try to build a carrier, you will always have about the same thing as a FS "Destroyer".

[aldo_14]

Worth emphasising that even Volition describe the Orion as a carrier.

[NGTM-1R]

Swamp-Thing:

Command tells you. But how does Command know? We don't know. You can say it's an AWACS, but it might be a gigantic fixed sensor array somewhere, on an Arcadia probably. There are also quite a few times when Command DOESN'T warn you. In fact, in the times Command warns you in advance, the vessel was almost certainly observed to be entering subspace by another GTVA ship, which noted its vector and passed that on to Command, which figured out where it was going.

And you still can't get away quickly enough. Subspace jumps are used because they're very fast. Even if you were tracking the other guy from halfway across the system, when he enters subspace he's going to be on top of you in very little time. A minute, maybe less. A capship can't get all that far in sixty seconds. You could try to jump out yourself; odds are you'd probably manage it in two minutes or so, so the destroyer would get off at least one volley.

As to the fighters: It's really quite simple. Take an Orion. It can deploy twenty wings of fighters.
Would you really have twenty wings out for Combat Aerospace Patrol? No. Maybe ten or fifteen at most. Probably a lot less.

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by karajorma


This is just too funny.

Yes it is, and i am laughing my behind off with it!!

Just cause you're opposed to node blockades doesn't mean your opponents have to be.    

Sure, but i am not forced to storm them, am i? Besides, haven´t you ever heard of mines? You know, those little things that go boom when you step on them? Why should i spend my valuable ships protecting a node (and risk loosing them), if i can just assign a couple of minelayers to swamp the place with the stuff?
And also, what good is a blockade, if your target jumps away 5 seconds after coming through the node? We´ve seen it happen many times, a huge fleet just waiting for the enemy, and then they just let them slip by...  It´s not like there is some sort of gentlemen´s pact that forbides your enemy of escaping your little trap, is there?
There are lots of ways to skin a rabbit, you know?

Let me give you a real FS2 situation. The NTF captured the three systems of Polaris, Regulus and Sirius. How the f**k do you think they'd defend them? Do you really think Bosch would be so stupid as to not defend the nodes heavily? Do you really think that if the GTVA forces had carriers he'd piss away his advantage by allowing those carriers to enter his systems, deploy their fighters and only then engage them? Do you think he'd do that just cause you don't like node blockades?

I don´t give a damn to how Bosch would defend anything. I only giv a damn to how I would. You understand? No one said carriers should be the only ship available to any given fleet, it´s you and others who assumed it by yourselfs. All we are saying is that a dedicated carrier is stronger than a destroyer, and that´s all.
Destroyers have their place, but so should carriers. Otherwise, why would they even bother to have fighterbays in a destroyer??

Remember this little rule of thumb: You can only win a war if you kill your opponent. Waiting in a node for him to POSSIBLY  come
through there, is a bad policy. While you station your fleet in one node, i could be attacking your supply routes in another.
Also, a node blockade only works if your enemy is on another system. If they are already inside the system, what good is a blockade?
And you realize how many nodes there are in the FS universe? Are you gonna station a fleet in each one of them? Somehow i don´t think you would have enough ships...

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Swamp-Thing:

As to the fighters: It's really quite simple. Take an Orion. It can deploy twenty wings of fighters.
Would you really have twenty wings out for Combat Aerospace Patrol? No. Maybe ten or fifteen at most. Probably a lot less.

Are you serious? You really think a destroyer is capable of putting up more fighters than a dedicated carrier, with 3+ times more fighterbays? Do you understand what you are implying?
If an Orion is capable of fast launching its 20 wings, through one fighterbay alone,  don´t you think a carrier with many more fighterbays, and with many more launching ports would be  a tad faster?
Don´t you think a carrier would have some advantage in its launching speed, over a destroyer? Launching fighters and bombers is what it is focused to do. The destroyer is not. It can launch fighters, sure. But at a much lesser rate than a carrier.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Remember this little rule of thumb: You can only win a war if you kill your opponent. Waiting in a node for him to POSSIBLY  come
through there, is a bad policy.

Ok, there's a lot in there that is highly debatable, so don't flame people from holding differing ideas.  But the line I quoted is a serious problem.  The best way to win a war is not to kill your enemy, it is to render your enemy incapable of continuing to fight.  If isolating them in a region with insufficient resources, or keeping them from harming your region, suits those aims, then blockading the only way in or out is a perfectly viable solution.

In FS, nodes aren't all that common; all that the NTF had connecting its systems to GTVA space was 3 nodes, so either side could at least mount enough defenses to keep raiding parties from slipping through.  Sure, ships can run a blockade.  But the losses they suffer in doing so is prohibitive to them doing it very often.  (King's Gambit).  The stationary defender has the upper hand in that scenario if there is enough available firepower to crack any ship within a minute, since jump drives seem to take about that long to charge.

[NGTM-1R]

You again miss the point. All fighters have intra-system jump drives. Therefore the Orion deploys its fighters before it jumps to engage the carrier, and the fighters all jump with it.
Because of the fact the Orion has fried the launch bays on the carrier with its opening volley, the carrier has only the fighters already deployed  available to it.
This is a much smaller number the carrier's full complement. Even giving you the minute's warning, you still could not put up enough fighters to significantly outnumber those twenty wings.

Nodes are the choke points. Your targets must pass through the choke points. They do not necessarily have to go through any other spot in the entire system, but they MUST use at least one of the nodes.
And, to borrow a quote, "Space is big. Really, really big." You could cruise around for literally DAYS and not sight an enemy even inside a hostile-controlled system. Or you could park yourself on the node, where you know there will be, and MUST BE, traffic. It's just that simple. The targets will come to you, rather then you having to go find them.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
All we are saying is that a dedicated carrier is stronger than a destroyer, and that´s all.

And I'm giving you a situation where a dedicated carrier is so much weaker than a destroyer that it's laughable. Sure given the right conditions a carrier would be stronger but the same is true for a destroyer. Both ships have their strengths and weaknesses and it's foolish to make blanket claims that a carrier is always better than a destroyer.

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Destroyers have their place, but so should carriers. Otherwise, why would they even bother to have fighterbays in a destroyer??

Of course they both have their place. I said exactly that earlier. I was taking exception to your tactics. Not blockading the nodes is foolish.

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Sure, but i am not forced to storm them, am i?

Yes you are. That's why I gave the example. If you aren't going to storm the node then you've basically handed Bosch control of the three systems he controlled. Remember that at the time the GTVA believed that to be his goal. If you're not prepared to attack a blockaded node you've basically lost the war already.

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
And also, what good is a blockade, if your target jumps away 5 seconds after coming through the node? We´ve seen it happen many times, a huge fleet just waiting for the enemy, and then they just let them slip by... It´s not like there is some sort of gentlemen´s pact that forbides your enemy of escaping your little trap, is there?

Have you even played Kings Gambit? It's pretty obvious that ships can't jump out 5 seconds after coming through a node.

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Besides, haven´t you ever heard of mines? You know, those little things that go boom when you step on them? Why should i spend my valuable ships protecting a node (and risk loosing them), if i can just assign a couple of minelayers to swamp the place with the stuff?

Mines take time to deploy for a start which means that in many cases they'd be too slow to be of any use. Secondly deploying simple mines means that you've now blockaded the node against your own useage. If you use more complex mines with a IFF system you run the risk that espionage could lead to those nodes being used against you.

Mines have their uses but they're not the catch all solution you seem to be thinking that they are.

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Remember this little rule of thumb: You can only win a war if you kill your opponent. Waiting in a node for him to POSSIBLY  come
through there, is a bad policy.  

Completely wrong. As I stated above Bosch could easily have won the war the GTVA thought he was fighting by simply reinforcing his systems to the point where the GTVA would rather talk peace than attack the systems. With only three entry points that is a much better solution than going out and trying to kill all the GTVA forces you can.

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
While you station your fleet in one node, i could be attacking your supply routes in another.

Did you even look at the example I gave you? How are you planning to attack supply routes in Polaris or Sirius without getting through the node?

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Also, a node blockade only works if your enemy is on another system. If they are already inside the system, what good is a blockade?

When did I say that node blockades were the only tactic that should ever be applied? They are one tactic amongst many. I'm mearly laughing at your poor grasp of tactics to ignore them.

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
And you realize how many nodes there are in the FS universe? Are you gonna station a fleet in each one of them? Somehow i don´t think you would have enough ships...

You telling me that I was thinking that the GTVA was bloacking the Delta-serpentis to Ross 128 node during the NTF war or something? You blockade the nodes of strategic importance. There are lots of examples of this tactic being used in FS 1 & 2.

[Fergus]

Good to see what a loving and accepting community we are.

It seems the carrier debate is a bit silly for a number of reasons.
First: The Destroyer class vessel covers all of the GTVA fighter and bomber support needs (and they have Alpha 1 which makes the rest pointless).  Also you never see the GTVA just deploying hundreds of fighter wings to get a task done.
Second: A Dedicated carrier would be a waste of resources, a Colossus without guns basically, and we all know how much the famous ships always seem to be the ones that get it first.  Galatea, Psamtik, Colossus.
Third: Any dedicated carrier would require escort-not including its fighter protection- the escort would need to consist of several ships.  All hypothetical, it would need cruiser and corvette escort from enemy capital ships-no amount of bombers can stop an enemy capital ship coming in from long range and pummelling the ship.  And of course the most critical escort vessel-the destroyer, because only the Destroyer has enough firepower to quickly resolve capital ship engagements.  A large part of this escort would have to stay close to the carrier at all times, and would likely never see any action, a bigger waste of resources than the carrier.

This is just my logical thinking of the dedicated carrier idea (GTCa I blame the Parents?).
As for blockading, it makes perfect strategic sense.

I sense the flamethrowers approaching